fixpoint-combinators, which is about fixed point combinators. I have just created this tag for the sake of disambiguating fixed-point (see discussion at Fix up [fixed-point]?). Though it currently has only 29 questions, that number is expected to grow, as I plan to gradually add the tag to other FP questions in which it would be relevant.

While I believe the reasoning above suffices to justify the synonyms, the odds of getting them approved through the voting process seem very low, given the volume of questions in the tags (see Approving synonyms for non-top tags and related discussions). According to Can moderators preemptively add tag synonyms?, moderators have the ability to create brand new tag synonyms whenever reasonable. That being so, I'd like to ask for a moderator to create the following synonyms:

The same question as always. Do any of these tags needs to exist? Does any question that this tag would be applied with, be covered by existing tags?
– BraiamJul 7 at 21:14

1

@Braiam Yes, the tags need to exist. They pinpoint, with sufficient precision, well defined and widely applicable concepts.
– duplodeJul 7 at 22:46

You aren't answering my question. A tag only needs to exist if other existing tags don't cocer the topic. Tags aren't meant to be created for any reason. It has to be an "strong case" to make a tag. I don't see that case being built here.
– BraiamJul 8 at 2:00

@Braiam In the case of [fixpoint-combinators] the closest match is probably [recursion], but that is way too broad to be useful for the purpose of finding questions about fixed point combinators. As for [partial-application], I didn't create it. I do think it should exist as, again, there is no adequately scoped tag about what is an important concept. If you truly believe you have a substantive case for removing it, make a burnination request, and we'll see how it goes.
– duplodeJul 8 at 2:22

Do you believe those concepts exist in a vacuum on a site for practical programming questions? I really don't see any functional programming question not having their associated language being applied. Yes, the concepts are being used, but they aren't the key issue of the question. The implementation is, which is what the tagging would strongly favor.
– BraiamJul 9 at 0:02

@Braiam Are you suggesting that tags about language-agnostic programming concepts should not exist?
– duplodeJul 9 at 14:00

My position has been set 4 years prior meta.stackoverflow.com/a/300700/792066 there hasn't been a change since. This isn't about that. This is that the concepts are pretty narrow that a full fledged question without the language is very unlikely to ever exist on SO. Case point, you haven't provided a single question where only these tags would be the only tags on the questions.
– BraiamJul 9 at 14:01

@Braiam Why should providing such a question be a hard requirement for the existence of a tag?
– duplodeJul 9 at 14:13

That doesn't cover the "only tags on the questions" part.
– duplodeJul 9 at 14:15

That's a combination of two things: "Even if you have sufficient reputation, you should only create new tags when you feel you can make a strong case that your question covers a new topic that nobody else has asked about before on this site" and "Every tag you use should be able to work, more or less, as the only tag on a question".
– BraiamJul 9 at 14:18